Time Series Analysis of Political Change

  • David L. Weakliem
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

This chapter considers the use of time-series analysis in the study of politics. Time-series analysis, as traditionally understood, requires a moderate number of observations on a single unit at approximately equal intervals. Data of this kind are rarely available at the individual level, so this chapter will focus on the macro level. Quantitative analysis of individual change is usually based on panels rather than time series (see Hsiao 1986 for a comprehensive discussion). Examples of time series relevant to the study of politics include election results, the number of protests, ratings of governments in terms of various qualities, and averages of individual opinions as measured by surveys. The chapter will focus on dependent variables that can be treated as at least approximately continuous, although it will give some attention to issues involving small counts. The analysis of single events calls for different techniques, which are discussed in Chap. 32.


Ordinary Little Square Time Series Analysis Structural Break Path Dependence Generalize Little Square 


  1. Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, James A. Robinson, and Pierre Yared. 2007. “Reevaluating the Modernization Hypothesis.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 13334. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  2. Akaike, Hirotugu. 1973. “Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle.” Pp. 267–81 in Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory, edited by B. N. Petrov and F. Caski. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
  3. Almon, Shirley. 1965. “The Distributed Lag Between Capital Appropriations and Expenditures.” Econometrica33: 178–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews, Donald W. K. 1993. “Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point.” Econometrica 61: 821–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1960. “Decision Theory and the Choice of a Level of Significance for the t-Test.” Pp. 70–78 in Contributions to Probability and Statistics, edited by Ingram Olkin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barro, Robert J. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin. 2004. Economic Growth (second edition). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, James O. and Thomas Sellke. 1987. “Testing a Point Null Hypothesis: the Irreconcilability of P-values and Evidence.” Journal of the American StatisticalAssociation 82: 112–22.Google Scholar
  8. Berk, Richard A., Bruce Western, and Richard E. Weiss. 1995. “Statistical Inference for Apparent Populations.” Sociological Methodology 25: 421–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Box, G. E. P., and D. R. Cox. 1964. “An Analysis of Transformations.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series B 26: 211–52.Google Scholar
  10. Chow, Gregory C. 1960. “Tests of Equality Between Two Sets of Coefficients in Linear Regressions.” Econometrica 28: 591–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fair, Ray C. 1996. “Econometrics and Presidential Elections.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 10: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen, Bruce E. 2001. “The New Econometrics of Structural Change: Dating Breaks in U. S. Labor Productivity.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 117–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hendry, David F. 1995. Dynamic Econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoeting, Jennifer A., David Madigan, Adrian E. Raftery, and Chris Volinsky. 1999. “Bayesian Model Averaging: A Tutorial.” Statistical Science 14: 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsiao, Cheng. 1986. Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hurvich, Clifford M. 1997. “Mean Square Over Degrees of Freedom: New Perspectives on a Model Selection Treasure.” Pp. 203–15 in The Practice of Data Analysis, edited by D. R. Brillinger, L. T. Fernholz, and S. Morgen-thaler. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. — — and Wayne E. Baker. 2000. “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values.” American Sociological Review 65: 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kendall, Maurice and J. Keith Ord. 1990. Time Series, (third edition). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1960. Political Man. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  21. Merton, Robert K. 1987. “Three Fragments from a Sociologist's Notebooks: Establishing the Phenomenon, Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Research Materials.” Annual Review of Sociology 13: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez.1997 “World Society and the NationState.” American Journal of Sociology 103: 144–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quandt, Richard E. 1960. “Tests of the Hypothesis That a Linear Regression Obeys Two Separate Regimes.” Journal of the American Statistical Association55: 324–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwartz, Gideon. 1978. “Estimating the Dimension of a Model.” Annals of Statistics 6: 461–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood, B. Dan. 2000. “Weak Theories and Parameter Instability: Using Flexible Least Squares to Take Time Varying Relationships Seriously.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 603–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Weakliem
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations